Queen at the EMAs

[QUOTE]

[b]GratefulFan wrote: [/b] [QUOTE]

[b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/b] Michael, a runner-up on a talent show with a decent voice isn't anything close to an "artist", that demeans the term for people who have talent.  He's no better than Gary Mullen, or no worse, because they've both made their mark singing others material.  Adam Lambert is the world's most flamboyant karaoke singer, not worthy of a spot with Queen, maybe a Queen tribute band. [/QUOTE]
Adam Lambert is the rough equivalent of Celine Dion, if Celine regularly jacked Rob Halford's wardrobe closet and sang shittily more often than she does.  They both have big polished voices that take up a lot of space in the room, but little anywhere else.  Somebody remarked about Bob Dylan that he had changed things such that it was no longer good enough to sing sweetly because what mattered was if people believed you.  Lambert is not believable.  Some people are high achievers technically and never let you forget for a moment that they are 'performing'.  Some people apparently like that.  Hey if you like his effusive and elaborate vocal love notes to himself, knock yourself out, but don't be looking to hard for exotic reasons why other people don't.  The fact it that at 27 years old, Adam got as far as he was going to get on his own before AI because as a true artist he has done nothing to suggest that he is not exceedingly limited.  People comparing him to early Fred when Fred was still reaching around a bit are really pretty delusional.  Adam is 29 or 30 now I think?  I guess we can expect his Bohemian Rhapsody magnum opus any day now...[/QUOTE]
also VERY well put. in fact, it might be post of the year

[QUOTE]

[b]Michael Allred wrote: [/b] [QUOTE]

[b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/b] Michael, a runner-up on a talent show with a decent voice isn't anything close to an "artist", that demeans the term for people who have talent.  He's no better than Gary Mullen, or no worse, because they've both made their mark singing others material.  Adam Lambert is the world's most flamboyant karaoke singer, not worthy of a spot with Queen, maybe a Queen tribute band. [/QUOTE]

Again, let's get past the obvious snobbery here as it does not matter where or how someone gets their start. Would you have looked at Mercury any differently had he got his start in the same way? [/QUOTE]
listen, most people start out by covering other people's material. no snobbery involved there.

my "snobbery" though, is this;

before reality tv (and still applying for those who take the old route and DON'T appear on reality shows) - you had to play those covers on a regular stage, in a reguar pub/club, in front of a "neutral" audience, ranging from probably 8 people on a bad night, and 100 on a good night. Now - in this situation, you have to do a complete SET, not just a verse and two choruses. We're talking at least 30 minutes vs 2 minutes.
and last but not least; if people don't like you - they go to the bar and don't give a shit, or perhaps they move on to the pub next door.

what happens with the in studio tv audience? towards the contestants, they only voice their positive energy. if there's someone they might not like - do they shout "F*** off"? "Play another song"? and then bugger off to get a drink in the bar?
No. And don't tell me there are no "performances" where that would have been called for ;)

ANY NEGATIVITY in these shows are directed at the 3 people calling themselves "judges". When someone stinks and it's pointed out by the judges, the judges are then booed by the audience...wtf???
The whole thing is INCREDIBLY fake, and has NOTHING to do with how real artists are bred.

I don't think that point of view is snobbery

That's right e-man.  The reality show contestants come out of nowhere, the marketing machine fires up and then they are stars or sensations before they've done anything in they're careers short of showcase their voices.  Can Adam Lambert capture an audiences attention for an entire concert?  Maybe, maybe not.  But there is nothing in his past to suggest he is anything but a talented bit player, and no one on earth would know who he is apart from short performances on a TV show.

And what do y'all think about Adele joining Brian and Roger for that performance? She won't be any good with WWRY, but I imagine her singing Who Wants To Live Forever, Show Must Go On and Champions beautifully.

[QUOTE]

[b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/b] I'm not here to change your mind and I know you're not here to change mine.  However, according to the 1000% accurate WikiPedia, 'From December 2006 to May 2007, Lambert briefly moonlighted as the front man for underground rock band The Citizen Vein.  Beginning in 2004, he regularly performed at the Upright Cabaret and the Zodiac Show, which was co-created by Carmit Bachar of the Pussycat Dolls.From 2005-2008 he performed in the ensemble, as well as understudy the role of Fiyero, in the national tour and Los Angeles productions of Wicked.  So he had to start somewhere agreed.  His career was really non-existent to be honest (in scope of ANYONE knowing him) until American Idol.  If he wasn't on that show, he may still be an understudy on an off Broadway show.  That doesn't make him untalented, just makes him a talented guy who got the break of a lifetime on a talent show.  He's done nothing except sing other people's songs, which means you're an interpreter, and they aren't in the same league as creators.  So IMHO, he's a third rate talent replacing the greatest singer ever.  Tough shoes to fill, pretty much impossible.  His flamboyant persona doesn't make him the man for the job.[/QUOTE]
Wait, who is Lambert trying to replace? You lost me there.

Yes, he got his break on a TV show. Should I now present a loooooooooong list of (now) legends who got their first nationwide exposure on TV? How else do you get national exposure other than TV? Do you know some secret that nobody else is privy to?

As far as singing someone else's songs, "Idol" to the best of my knowledge isn't a songwriter competition. Mercury himself sang other people's song as did Elvis and Sinatra. Are they merely "interpreters" as well? I mean isn't interpretation ESSENTIAL to conveying a song's meaning? If not then you're just a robot coldly reciting lyrics.

and his flamboyant persona? HIS? Are you honestly saying Mercury didn't have one as well? or are you saying Lambert's flamboyance isn't gay enough? I really don't get that comment.

[QUOTE]

[b]Gregsynth wrote: [/b] [QUOTE]

[b]Michael Allred wrote: [/b] [QUOTE]

[b]Gregsynth wrote: [/b] [QUOTE]

[b]Michael Allred wrote: [/b] [QUOTE]

[b]Gregsynth wrote: [/b] [QUOTE]
[/QUOTE] ========

Apparently, you don't seem to get it: I've watched Lambert on American Idol, his 2010-2011 tour, and his various guest/TV appearances. He does indeed have an excessive "musical theatre" vibrato, and he does wail/shout/scream high notes. If you actually get off your high horse and read the comments on this thread, you can see that MANY users here are saying something similar. If you can't hear his "goat-vibrato" on that performance, then I don't what to say (even Sir GH said he over-did the vibrato). You are incredibly arrogant to judge people and claim that Queen fans are close-minded. Hello? Maybe some people DIDN'T LIKE THE PERFORMANCE. I didn't like Freddie's performance of "Communication Breakdown" from 1969, but you don't see me bitching and moaning on forums and Youtube about it (then comparing that to Robert Plant).

The reason why I didn't like this performance has nothing to do with being anti-Lambert/pro-Queen. It was because Lambert was OFF KEY, and SCREAMED during TSMGO (which aren't opinions). How's that for an answer? [/QUOTE]

Queen fans ARE some of the most close minded fans. Period. Shockingly so.

I'm "incredibly arrogant"? Coming from you that's a compliment. [/QUOTE]
============

Well you are ignoring true facts, and making assumptions about Queen fans: That alone is arrogance. [/QUOTE]
No assumptions are being made, I am observing Queen fan behavior and have been for years.[/QUOTE]
===========

Why would you observe behavior? [/QUOTE]
Why do I smoke cigarettes? Fuck if I know. I would guess it came along with reading and responding to other's opinions.

[QUOTE]

[b]e-man wrote: [/b] [QUOTE]

[b]Michael Allred wrote: [/b] [QUOTE]

[b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/b] Michael, a runner-up on a talent show with a decent voice isn't anything close to an "artist", that demeans the term for people who have talent.  He's no better than Gary Mullen, or no worse, because they've both made their mark singing others material.  Adam Lambert is the world's most flamboyant karaoke singer, not worthy of a spot with Queen, maybe a Queen tribute band. [/QUOTE]

Again, let's get past the obvious snobbery here as it does not matter where or how someone gets their start. Would you have looked at Mercury any differently had he got his start in the same way? [/QUOTE]
listen, most people start out by covering other people's material. no snobbery involved there.

my "snobbery" though, is this;

before reality tv (and still applying for those who take the old route and DON'T appear on reality shows) - you had to play those covers on a regular stage, in a reguar pub/club, in front of a "neutral" audience, ranging from probably 8 people on a bad night, and 100 on a good night. Now - in this situation, you have to do a complete SET, not just a verse and two choruses. We're talking at least 30 minutes vs 2 minutes.
and last but not least; if people don't like you - they go to the bar and don't give a shit, or perhaps they move on to the pub next door.

what happens with the in studio tv audience? towards the contestants, they only voice their positive energy. if there's someone they might not like - do they shout "F*** off"? "Play another song"? and then bugger off to get a drink in the bar?
No. And don't tell me there are no "performances" where that would have been called for ;)

ANY NEGATIVITY in these shows are directed at the 3 people calling themselves "judges". When someone stinks and it's pointed out by the judges, the judges are then booed by the audience...wtf???
The whole thing is INCREDIBLY fake, and has NOTHING to do with how real artists are bred.

I don't think that point of view is snobbery [/QUOTE]
Well we live in the 21st century and so the negative reactions you talk about now come by way of the internet which, in case you haven't noticed, can be far more vicious and cruel.

and if you think that artificiality only came along with the advent of reality TV then you my friend are incredibly naive.

I was just on Youtube, and you won't believe some of the comments I've been seeing: There are two camps fighting it out on various uploads of the AMA performance: Lambert fanboys/girls (who take offense to even the slightest criticism of Lambert), and Freddie/Queen fanboys/fangirls (who think that anybody who covers Queen is automatically bad).

I do have legit reasons for not liking Lambert's performance (off key singing and the excessive vibrato), but there's people that use his sexuality for dissing the performance (which isn't cool).

[QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

[b]Michael Allred wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [b]e-man wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [b]Michael Allred wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

[b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/b] Michael, a runner-up on a talent show with a decent voice isn't anything close to an "artist", that demeans the term for people who have talent.  He's no better than Gary Mullen, or no worse, because they've both made their mark singing others material.  Adam Lambert is the world's most flamboyant karaoke singer, not worthy of a spot with Queen, maybe a Queen tribute band.

Again, let's get past the obvious snobbery here as it does not matter where or how someone gets their start. Would you have looked at Mercury any differently had he got his start in the same way?
listen, most people start out by covering other people's material. no snobbery involved there.

my "snobbery" though, is this;

before reality tv (and still applying for those who take the old route and DON'T appear on reality shows) - you had to play those covers on a regular stage, in a reguar pub/club, in front of a "neutral" audience, ranging from probably 8 people on a bad night, and 100 on a good night. Now - in this situation, you have to do a complete SET, not just a verse and two choruses. We're talking at least 30 minutes vs 2 minutes.
and last but not least; if people don't like you - they go to the bar and don't give a shit, or perhaps they move on to the pub next door.

what happens with the in studio tv audience? towards the contestants, they only voice their positive energy. if there's someone they might not like - do they shout "F*** off"? "Play another song"? and then bugger off to get a drink in the bar?
No. And don't tell me there are no "performances" where that would have been called for ;)

ANY NEGATIVITY in these shows are directed at the 3 people calling themselves "judges". When someone stinks and it's pointed out by the judges, the judges are then booed by the audience...wtf???
The whole thing is INCREDIBLY fake, and has NOTHING to do with how real artists are bred.

I don't think that point of view is snobbery
Well we live in the 21st century and so the negative reactions you talk about now come by way of the internet which, in case you haven't noticed, can be far more vicious and cruel.

and if you think that artificiality only came along with the advent of reality TV then you my friend are incredibly naive.

fake artists have always been around, and always will be - but to make tv entertainment about it and portrait the contestants as superb artists (how can you be an artist without a record out???) is just a complete joke

and do you sincerely believe that some youtube comment has the same effect on a karaoke contestant who's in front of a tv audience which absolutely LOVES to be in the room, as a "fuck off and play another song" has on someone at the nearest club?
in my book - THAT IS NAIVE

imagine being on stage and the audience loves you, regardless of quality (and you KNOW I'm right. many of the contestants don't deserve a polite round of applause even) - and when 1, 2 or at max 3, people claim you were anything but brilliant  - the rest of the room starts to boo????? Give me a break.

[QUOTE]

[b]e-man wrote: [/b] also VERY well put. in fact, it might be post of the year[/QUOTE]
I appreciate knowing you liked the post, but Lambert as a subject isn't important enough to music in the grand scheme of things to be post of the afternoon.

[QUOTE]

[b]e-man wrote:[/b]

imagine being on stage and the audience loves you, regardless of quality (and you KNOW I'm right. many of the contestants don't deserve a polite round of applause even) - and when 1, 2 or at max 3, people claim you were anything but brilliant  - the rest of the room starts to boo????? Give me a break. [/QUOTE]
It seems to me that Lambert has always inhabited a world where he was applauded, always the bees knees.  There was something floating around a few years ago  posted by a couple of his old high school classmates.  They said he was talented but arrogant and somebody that treated people in the social tiers 'below him' with indifference and disdain.  Now not everybody is going to get positive reviews from everybody else in high school, so don't want to overblow that, but he does have that aura of confidence about him that comes from things always having come easily rather than somebody who has had to dig deep and find real substance through adversity, rejection and difficulty.  The AI/TV talent show format is the perfect continuation of that.  Musical theatre class, suburbia and a life with too little resistance aren't usually key in the development of great rock stars.  Perfect recipe though for people who lack the humility required to recognize when a moment is not about them, and that they are not in fact a peer of the dead Freddie Mercury.

I've seen Adam in a few interviews and he always comes off as a nice person who is very quick and bright and confident.

[QUOTE]

[b]Donna13 wrote: [/b] I've seen Adam in a few interviews and he always comes off as a nice person who is very quick and bright and confident.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, so am I, doesn't make me fit for adulation or a guest spot singing for Queen.

I'm not sure if quoting always works for me but my post was in response to GFF's post regarding how Adam's high school friends remembered him.  So I was referring to my perception of his character based on how he comes off during interviews.

[QUOTE]

[b]e-man wrote: [/b]

fake artists have always been around, and always will be - but to make tv entertainment about it and portrait the contestants as superb artists (how can you be an artist without a record out???) is just a complete joke

and do you sincerely believe that some youtube comment has the same effect on a karaoke contestant who's in front of a tv audience which absolutely LOVES to be in the room, as a "fuck off and play another song" has on someone at the nearest club?
in my book - THAT IS NAIVE

imagine being on stage and the audience loves you, regardless of quality (and you KNOW I'm right. many of the contestants don't deserve a polite round of applause even) - and when 1, 2 or at max 3, people claim you were anything but brilliant  - the rest of the room starts to boo????? Give me a break. [/QUOTE]

So to be an artist, you have to have a record out?

and no, one single youtube comment doesn't amount to much. Clearly that's not what I was talking about. Blogs, Facebook, any number of web sites, etc etc etc. Twitter, you name it. Information spreads quickly, so does bad word of mouth.